Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuggtmoy
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A Traintalk 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Zuggtmoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Some RS has shown up in my search results. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 02:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I think the above !voter may be referring to [1], [2], [3], and [4], which all seem to mention this one fictional element in reviews. There's a bit more in [5], [6]. Books without preview dealing with this apparently include [7], but I can't verify that. At any rate, yeah, this is a major antagonist in the long-running plot lines. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- As per usual, none of these sources show anything relevant. First four are singular name usage that do not talk about the character in any meaningful context, fifth is just describing a branching scenario and mentions the character only in relation to the scenario without any real world context, and sixth is just a strategy guide. Once again, you've brought in a load of fluff and three other people will come in here to vote "per Jclemens" despite reasonably knowing that none of these sources could actually be added to the article in good faith, at least in terms of establishing notability for the article. Would it kill you to at least try to find actual sources? TTN (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- At some point, you should reevaluate your assessment of the sorts of sources I provide, since when I do provide them and dispute your deletion proposal, consensus seems to fall with me far more often than it does with you. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please feel free to show me where anyone has used the majority of the sources you provide to improve an article. There is not one source listed above that could be added to the article in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with the sources being relevant or even actual consensus that the article is notable. It's a bunch of people coming in with the idea that the article is notable in the first place and voting keep based upon that initial idea when given a reason to do so, even if that reason is faulty. Pretty much all these articles that have been kept recently will end up sitting for another year without improvement and eventually be removed in another AFD. It's actually quite common in a number of AfDs with the same kind of useless laundry list of trivial mentions. Your idea of notability is simply contrary to Wikipedia's idea of notability. I don't see that changing any time soon. TTN (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Amusing that you should expect me to improve an article with what I find, when when I find anything at all, it's evidence that you never bother following WP:BEFORE. You also confuse evidence of notability, which must be independent, with evidence of sources which can be used to create and expand an article, which doesn't have to be, per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would expect that, if your sources are as good as you claim, that any of the number of people professing a keep argument would use them in the articles. They don't, they won't, and nobody ever will (unless someone shoves them in after this argument to make a very bad point). Anyone who expects someone to follow BEFORE to the letter for a bunch of old, forgotten ten year old articles is silly. The onus is on the person claiming that the articles are notable. Just because most these were made when Wikipedia's standards were extremely lax does not mean the idea of a topic needing to properly branch out from a main article should be ignored. I do run a quick check through the source links, but that doesn't really matter when you pull out a bunch of irrelevant junk and claim it to be proper. Articles need to have multiple, non trivial third party sources to establish notability. While you constantly try to dance around that very specific definition of notability, it's there as clear as day. These sources are irrelevant, trivial mentions that do nothing more than confirm the existence of the topic. TTN (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Amusing that you should expect me to improve an article with what I find, when when I find anything at all, it's evidence that you never bother following WP:BEFORE. You also confuse evidence of notability, which must be independent, with evidence of sources which can be used to create and expand an article, which doesn't have to be, per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please feel free to show me where anyone has used the majority of the sources you provide to improve an article. There is not one source listed above that could be added to the article in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with the sources being relevant or even actual consensus that the article is notable. It's a bunch of people coming in with the idea that the article is notable in the first place and voting keep based upon that initial idea when given a reason to do so, even if that reason is faulty. Pretty much all these articles that have been kept recently will end up sitting for another year without improvement and eventually be removed in another AFD. It's actually quite common in a number of AfDs with the same kind of useless laundry list of trivial mentions. Your idea of notability is simply contrary to Wikipedia's idea of notability. I don't see that changing any time soon. TTN (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- At some point, you should reevaluate your assessment of the sorts of sources I provide, since when I do provide them and dispute your deletion proposal, consensus seems to fall with me far more often than it does with you. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- As per usual, none of these sources show anything relevant. First four are singular name usage that do not talk about the character in any meaningful context, fifth is just describing a branching scenario and mentions the character only in relation to the scenario without any real world context, and sixth is just a strategy guide. Once again, you've brought in a load of fluff and three other people will come in here to vote "per Jclemens" despite reasonably knowing that none of these sources could actually be added to the article in good faith, at least in terms of establishing notability for the article. Would it kill you to at least try to find actual sources? TTN (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: It needs some rewrite though. Doesn't look encyclopedic at the moment.Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 12:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per all the keeps above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above, or failing that merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or merge - The Polygon source is a trivial passing mention in an interview with a WotC employee, the Forbes article another trivial passing mention from 'contributor' content which should not be assumed reliable, the Escapist mention is another passing mention in a product announcement of no substance, and Diehardgamefan is another very trivial passing mention in an outlet which doesn't appear reliable. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per all above, as well. This article should remain. It satisfies GNG seanhaley1 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)- How? What significant coverage has this received that is independent of the subject? Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per JClemens. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.